How can I save on ink costs?
in [Printers]
|
Prev: Replaceing a laseer printer.
Next: to Arthur Entlich
From: tomm42 on 7 May 2008 08:58 On May 6, 1:24 pm, Robert Montgomery <info-bl...(a)northern-data- tech.net> wrote: > How can I save on ink costs? > > My Epson Stylus Photo 2400 inkjet sucks up a lot of expensive ink. > > I don't want to use another brand of ink in that printer because I need > the ink to be archival. If you want top image quality your printer is going to use appoximently 1.5-2mls of ink per square foot. That is just how it is. Yes you will save money by going to a third party ink, but as you said then you don't know what the longevity of the ink is. Epson K3 ink in Wihelm tests went from 100-200+ years depending on the paper and storage conditions. Wihelm's standards and testing procedures are very public, but I don't see any 3rd party inks doing them except for MIS. Conservators will always argue over what should be called "archival", is it a document that will last 100 years with minor care or a document that lasts 1000 years. Paper also has a function in the longevity of a print, RC papers are expected not to last as long as pure fiber based papers, but Wilhelm has said there is no easy way to test this, but he also has said he expects most RC papers to fall apart in 50 years or so, so much for the longevity of the ink. So archival is not a great term. One way to save money is to go to a 17 inch printer, inks because of the volume of ink you buy, it ends up being about 1/2 the price of ink for 13 inch printers. You pay though for the higher price of the printer and because of their high volumes the price of the cartridges. It is nice to only have to buy ink once a year if you are a home user. 17 inch printers are also better built than the 13 inch models. I am currently using a Canon iPF5000 at home and an HP B9180 at work, I have owned Epsons in the past and have used Epsons with 3rd party inks, so my experience here covers a lot of areas. Tom
From: measekite on 7 May 2008 10:57 Bob Headrick wrote: > > > "DanG" <nospam(a)q.com> wrote in message > news:zZWdnR8Umao6Ab3VnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d(a)comcast.com... >> >> "Robert Montgomery" <info-block(a)northern-data-tech.net> wrote in >> message news:Gv0Uj.920$KB3.362(a)edtnps91... >>> How can I save on ink costs? >>> >>> My Epson Stylus Photo 2400 inkjet sucks up a lot of expensive ink. >>> >>> I don't want to use another brand of ink in that printer because I >>> need the ink to be archival. >>> >> >> 1) No such thing as "archival" inkjet prints. Don't believe marketing >> hype. >> >> 2) Epson inks have no special claim to longevity. Given the right >> combination of ink and paper, compatible ink may well last as long or >> longer. > > Testing by Henry Wilhelm would tend to disagree with you. See > http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ and before you claim that you know > more than he does please review his resume at > http://www.wilhelm-research.com/about_us.html > > - Bob Headrick, MS MVP Printing/Imaging Ah, the HP employee agrees with me on this one. > >
From: measekite on 7 May 2008 10:58 Peter wrote: > Robert Montgomery wrote: >> How can I save on ink costs? >> >> My Epson Stylus Photo 2400 inkjet sucks up a lot of expensive ink. >> >> I don't want to use another brand of ink in that printer because I >> need the ink to be archival. >> > Obviously you can print in draft mode, Who is going to print a photo in draft mode. That is ridiculous. > or use one of the Inksaver programs; however since you mention > archival that may not be a option for you. > The obvious thing is to only do a print run when you have many > documents to produce. He is not printing documents. He is printing photos. > That way you minimise the ink waste from clearing the print head every > switch-on. That can be quite a lot of ink if you print one a day.
From: measekite on 7 May 2008 11:02
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <br> <br> tomm42 wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:31dda7f0-bdcd-4bc1-af16-1daa97cb1573(a)x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On May 6, 1:24 pm, Robert Montgomery <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:info-bl...(a)northern-data-tech.net"><info-bl...(a)northern-data- tech.net></a> wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">How can I save on ink costs? My Epson Stylus Photo 2400 inkjet sucks up a lot of expensive ink. I don't want to use another brand of ink in that printer because I need the ink to be archival. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!----> If you want top image quality your printer is going to use appoximently 1.5-2mls of ink per square foot. That is just how it is. Yes you will save money by going to a third party ink</pre> </blockquote> That is not true. You only save money when you spend less and get the same thing. Since you are not getting the same thing you are spending less and getting less.<br> <blockquote cite="mid:31dda7f0-bdcd-4bc1-af16-1daa97cb1573(a)x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">, but as you said then you don't know what the longevity of the ink is. Epson K3 ink in Wihelm tests went from 100-200+ years depending on the paper and storage conditions. Wihelm's standards and testing procedures are very public, but I don't see any 3rd party inks doing them except for MIS. Conservators will always argue over what should be called "archival", is it a document that will last 100 years with minor care or a document that lasts 1000 years. Paper also has a function in the longevity of a print, RC papers are expected not to last as long as pure fiber based papers, but Wilhelm has said there is no easy way to test this, but he also has said he expects most RC papers to fall apart in 50 years or so, so much for the longevity of the ink. So archival is not a great term. One way to save money is to go to a 17 inch printer,</pre> </blockquote> I did say the Epson 3800 may be a choice but also look at the Canon IPF models.<br> <blockquote cite="mid:31dda7f0-bdcd-4bc1-af16-1daa97cb1573(a)x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> inks because of the volume of ink you buy, it ends up being about 1/2 the price of ink for 13 inch printers. You pay though for the higher price of the printer and because of their high volumes the price of the cartridges. It is nice to only have to buy ink once a year if you are a home user. 17 inch printers are also better built than the 13 inch models. I am currently using a Canon iPF5000 at home and an HP B9180 at work, I have owned Epsons in the past and have used Epsons with 3rd party inks, so my experience here covers a lot of areas. Tom </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html> |